Public Bill Committee

[Janet Anderson in the Chair]
CS43 Local Government Ombudsman
CS44 Local Government Ombudsman (additional memorandum)
CS45 Jacquie Cox
CS46 John Friel
CS47 Newspaper Society
CS48 Pamela and Terry Perryman

Clause 14

Exemption from sex and relationships education

Amendment proposed (2 February): 63, in clause 14, page 15, line 31, leave out 15 and insert 16.(Tim Loughton.)

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Janet Anderson: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: amendment 162, in clause 14, page 15, line 31, leave out 15 and insert 14.
Amendment 163, in clause 14, page 15, line 33, leave out and relationships.
Amendment 164, in clause 14, page 15, line 34, after school, insert
if that parent has met with the head teacher of the school or the relevant teacher to discuss their concerns and establish the nature of what is to be taught.
Amendment 65, in clause 14, page 15, line 35, leave out from withdrawn to end of line 36.
Amendment 64, in clause 14, page 15, line 36, leave out 15 and insert 16.
Amendment 112, in clause 14, page 15, line 36, leave out 15 and insert 14.
Amendment 195, in clause 14, page 15, line 36, after 15, insert
unless the pupil expresses a wish to be excused from receiving such education..
New clause 7Removal of exemption from sex and relationships education
Section 405 of the Education Act 1996 shall be omitted..
Before we begin our deliberations, I wish to draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that, as Chairman, I have a duty to ensure that as much progress as possible has been made in our consideration of the Bill by the time we conclude our business at 5 pm today. I therefore urge members of the Committee to be succinct, and I shall be listening carefully to ensure that all contributions are relevant to the amendments under consideration.

Annette Brooke: I belatedly welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Anderson. We had an interesting debate up to 10 oclock on Tuesday, in which we heard many weasel words but, in reality, nothing has changed for the Conservatives. In supporting compulsory personal, social, health and economic education, I wish to make the point that all the major childrens organisations support the provision, including the National Childrens Bureau. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children also supports it, as does UNICEF, which has provided briefings for me in the past. We should operate from such a background. There has been a strong call for the move for a long time; it is critical.
The clause allows us to deal with the opt-outs. I have tabled four amendments, two of which propose the age of 14 instead of 15. They are probing amendments to find out why the Minister favours the age of 15. There are strong arguments for making sure that all children have education about sex and relationships earlier than at the age of 15. My personal view is that there should not be opt-outs. I accept that the Government agree, but I am interested in why they favour the age of 15.
The other amendments relate to my concern that the age of 15 is late for many pupils. I suggest in amendment 163 that the curriculum for children and young people should still have a relationships part. That is important. It should cover not only sexual relationships but getting on with one another, not bullying and confidence and self-esteem. Important education centres on the whole issue of relationships.
If the opt-out remains, amendment 164 suggests that it should apply only if the parent has met the head teacher of the school or the relevant teacher to discuss their concerns and to establish the nature of what is to be taught. There are many misconceptionssorry about thatabout what sex and relationships education involves. I have received a letter from a parent begging me not to take the innocence away from their child. If I thought that such education was taking innocence away from children, would I support it? No.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham challenged me on the subject of children being allowed to opt out. He needs to take on board the views of the very organisations that always ask us to put forward the rights, wishes and feelings of children. They are 100 per cent. behind this approach, particularly the Childrens Rights Alliance, which does not support an opt-out. It sees matters in terms of the rights of the child and says that the
state has the duty to ensure children and young people receive a good, broad and balanced education
we have discussed that before
which develops their personality, talents and physical and mental ability. SRE education is part of this duty.
It does not see sex and relationships education as any different from history, citizenship or science. No one would want to suggest that a child should have the right to withdraw from history or science; that would not fit in with the vision of the curriculum objectives. Currently, parents can withdraw their children from sex education, but not from the parts of the science curriculum that teach the biological aspects of human growth and reproduction. What nonsense. To teach children about the mechanics in the abstract and without providing the important relationships education that goes with it would be a disaster. People who argue against this are living in the past. There is no modernisation at all.
It is clear that children and young people want to receive high-quality sex and relationships education. We have already mentioned the United Kingdom Youth Parliament. The state has a duty to educate children on health. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors Government implementation of childrens rights, including the right to express their views, is clear that all children and young people should receive good-quality, age-appropriate health education, which includes sex and relationships education. That is important.
In the England submission to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2008, more than 100 non-governmental organisations endorsed a report recommending that the Government remove parents right to withdraw children from sex and relationships education in school. The case for compulsory PSHE is well made.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady started by saying that one of her amendments was a probing amendment to find out the Governments justification for 15. Her amendment reduces the age to 14. She has said nothing to justify why 14 rather than 13, 12 or whatever age. Will she address the reason for her amendment?

Annette Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is pretty obvious that I am simply asking the question, Why 15? The easiest way to probe that was to table an amendment. I am sure that the Minister understands the reasoning behind it. Why not 12? is a perfectly reasonable question. There should not be an opt-out at all. I want to hear from the Minister why 15. Organisations consider this to be so important that they reached a consensus around the age of 15. I am not sure that that is right, but I know that we must get this on the curriculum. We must have high quality PSHE and sex and relationships education, in particular.
With those words, Mrs. Anderson, and bearing in mind what you said earlier, I beg to move the amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil.

Ken Purchase: The question is, What message are we sending out? It is perfectly clear that there is overwhelming support in the country for properly structured, well-delivered, high quality sex and relationships education. When a poll is taken on such matters, more than 80 per cent. of people approve. They wish it to remain compulsory and on the curriculum for all children. I move that section 405 from the Education Act 1996 is removed, which would render the new clauseExemption from sex and relationships educationredundant.
I understand the arguments with regard to Why 16 or 15? Why 35?, as I mentioned the other day. There is no logic in any of the answers. The other day, we had an exchange about the works of Piaget, the child psychologist. He identified differences between the maturation rates of boys and girls and between each boy and girl. We know that girls in particular are entering puberty at an earlier age. Many girls need help and often that is not forthcoming.
The argument here is not about the quality of sex education or whether it should be taughtwe all agree on those thingsbut about the messages we are sending out. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe that:
Britain has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western Europe and the second highest, after the USA, in the world. Depressingly, the map of teenage pregnancy is the map of British deprivation.
I have no argument with people who decide that the way in which a school delivers sex education does not suit them and so take their children elsewhere. However, in Wolverhampton and another 300 or 400 constituencies, that choice does not exist.

Tim Loughton: Although there are close links between deprivation and teenage pregnancy levels, it is not exclusively so. Last year or the year before, the highest increase in teenage pregnancy levels was in the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenheadhardly a ghetto of poverty.

Ken Purchase: I accept the hon. Gentlemans point. Of course the levels can be quite random. However, when mapped across Britain, the picture is as the Minister for Europe described it last year.
The message is all important. As far as we know, only a small number of children are withdrawn from sex education; about 40 children in every 10,000. That is almost too small to measure. Why do we make this fuss? Is it really about parental choice, or is it about parental prejudice? When the matter was challenged in the European Court, there was an unequivocal ruling that it was an infringement of a childs rights to take them out of sex education lessons.
Let me make it clear that I think it is the right of the child to withdraw from Christian prayers or those of other religions, but not to withdraw from religious education. I do not believe a parent should be able to withdraw a child from religious education. Without a good knowledge of the King James Bible, the whole world of English literature is probably closed off for many children. Education must be seen in a broad sense. There must be consensus about what should be in the curriculum. Sex education is included.
We are talking about a tiny minority of people who insist that this matter is very personal to them and that in the broad sweep of education, they must be an exception and be able to deny their children the right and opportunity to have good-quality sex education. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole that quality is at the heart of this issue.
I believe that there is no age at which withdrawal from SRE can be justified. As Opposition Members said, why is it 15? Why should it not be 16, 19, 12 or 14? We do not include this equivocation in any other subject in the curriculum. Children in my constituency learn their sex in the playground, in dirty books and from TV. The other night in EastEnders, two younger people were clearly having sex in a cabin. It was aired just after 8 oclock. These people were virtually stripped off. In my opinion, the 9 oclock watershed is sensible and should apply.
Children are so far down the road of knowledge that it is vital that they get advice from expert teachers in the calm atmosphere of a classroom. The TUC argues that health workers should be involved so that they can support teachers who do not have the wide experience that is necessary to deliver the subject in a top-quality way. I argue that clause 14 is redundant and out of date, that it sends the wrong message, is an infringement of childrens rights and a sop to prejudice that we should not be considering in 2010.

Ann Cryer: I assure you, Mrs. Anderson, that I will be as brief as I can. I agree with much of what has been said, and there is no point in repeating it because we want to finish this matter.
Over the weekend, I was fortunate enough to address two meetings. One was a group of Asian women between the ages of 30 and 40 who were discussing problems with divorce, and the other was a group of people who were concerned with health matters. I took the advantage of the two gatherings to ask for peoples opinion on this clause. The view, by and large, was that those parents who wish to withdraw their children from sex and relationship lessons are very likely to be the same parents who will not broach the subject themselves at home. Therefore, their children will be completely deprived and very vulnerable. The other view was that 16 is far too old, and most thought that the age should be brought down to 12 or 13, but I will not go down that path.

Diana Johnson: Welcome back to the Chair, Mrs. Anderson. This group of amendments deals with a parental right of withdrawal from SRE. Amendments 63, 64 and 65 put forward the argument that pupils should be excused until they attain the age of 16. Amendments 162 and 112 propose that there should be a right to withdraw up to the age of 14. Amendment 163 would substitute references to sex and relationship education with references to sex education only. Amendment 164 would qualify the parental right to withdraw their child from sex and relationship lessons by making it a requirement on parents to talk to the school about any of their concerns. Amendment 195 would give a child over the age of 15 the right to withdraw from SRE, and new clause 7 would remove a parental right completely to withdraw their child from SRE.
Late on Tuesday evening, I was very interested to hear the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. His comments on the high rates of chlamydia and teenage pregnancy, and his acceptance of the need for good-quality PSHE and sex and relationship education were very welcome. I am sure that all parts of the Committee are in agreement on that today. Moreover, in an article in The Daily Telegraph, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said that we needed good sex and relationship education, so that is all very positive. I was astonished, therefore, when the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham confirmed late on Tuesday evening that Conservative policy was to retain the right of parental withdrawal for any pupil in compulsory education, and those in further education up to the age of 19, from SRE. That approach seems most illogical when we all know that the age of consent is 16. It means that 16, 17 and 18-year-olds, who can quite legally be having sex, can be withdrawn from any sex and relationship education. That is an untenable position, and it also prompts a question about the modern face of the Conservative party, because it is failing to look at the realities of life and listen to what key stakeholders, parents, young people, faith groups and the third sector are saying to us about this particular issue. It is not defensible to continue to allow parents to determine whether or not their children receive SRE potentially up to the age of 19 when the age of consent is 16.

Nick Gibb: Will the hon. Lady tell the Committee what responsibilities parents have to enforce the duty to participate in education or training until the age of 18?

Diana Johnson: Just on the point of parents involvement, what we would say and what has been said by all members of the Committee, is that we are absolutely clear that parents have a positive role to play with their children and young people not only in sex and relationship education, but generally in the whole of area of PSHE, and that they should make sure that the values relating to the importance of education are instilled in young people. We want children and young people to reach their full potential in education, so parents absolutely have that role to play.
I will come on to talk about why the Government initially took the view that we should accept Sir Alasdair Macdonalds recommendations in full. I know that, on Tuesday night, the hon. Gentleman wanted a response to that particular issue. The reason why we have changed our position is that we started to have in-depth discussions with experts and interested parties, including representatives of faith groups. We looked at research findings from samples of parents and adults who were concerned about that issue, and we concluded that it was right to say that there should be a right of withdrawal from sex and relationship education, but only to the age of 15.
We believe that is right because it is balanced, deliverable and legally enforceable, and it maintains the right of that small number of parents who wish to exercise the right of withdrawal. We also believe that setting the age limit at 15 offers the best chance of building a strong consensus on the subject. We have consulted with Sir Alasdair on that decision and he has supported it as a way forward. The trend in English law over the past 20 to 30 years has been to afford young people the right to make decisions for themselves, when they have the maturity to understand the implications of those decisions. That sits very well with international law and the development of human rights law.
The measure would bring together and balance the range of perspectives on an important and sensitive issue. The age of 15 is an age that key stakeholdersparents, professionals, young people and most faith groupsaccept as a sensible compromise. That means that every young person will receive a minimum of one years sex and relationship education before they reach the age of 16. Also, those parents who wish to withdraw their children from sex and relationships education will be able to see that their child is withdrawn throughout primary school and well into their childs teenage years.
I think that most 15-year-old children have already been introduced to the issues around sex and relationships through their friends and the media. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East talked a few moments ago about what was on the TV this week. Young people at 15 are well aware of such issues, so it is vital that all children have access to this education for that final year in school.

Ken Purchase: This 15 business defies logic. Although my hon. Friend wants to argue that it is a matter of balance and we can agree it, we are agreeing with people who are way off the pace with these matters. I used the illustration of the TV soap for the effect of pointing out what was on TV at 8 oclock in the evening. The truth is that the points she makes about a playground education, the TV and so on are the very reason why compromise on the matter is foolish, childish and not grown-up politics. Such an approach completely fails to recognise the realities of today. I cannot go into that now because I know the Chairman wants to move on, but the fact is trying to decide between 12, 15 and 19 is a ludicrous position. There is no logic, sense or reality to that. We get to a point in our lives when we ought to recognise for once that it is time to stop the hypocrisy and get on with a proper job.

Diana Johnson: I note my hon. Friends passion on the subject. We are very much talking about grown-up politics and making sure that we get compulsory sex and relationship education into our schools. We have to accept that a small number of parents want to retain the right to withdraw. If we are going to have the bigger prize of making sure of at least one year of compulsory sex and relationship education, for grown-up politics we have to agree the compromise. That is my answer, but my hon. Friend makes a persuasive case and a lot of hon. Members agree with him.
In answer to the question asked by hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, the view is that 14 is a little too young and 16 would mean that some young people received no sex and relationship education before they reached the age at which they are legally able to have sex. Having talked to key stakeholdersparents, faith groups14 is not something that we can get agreement on, but we can with 15.

David Laws: The Minister says that 14 is too young. On what basis is 14 too young?

Diana Johnson: What I have been trying to express throughout is that we have reached the age of 15 as a compromise, balancing different clear views: no right of withdrawal or keeping the age at 19. We think 15 is the compromise that the majority of people can coalesce around and say, Thats workable, we are willing to accept that. Fourteen was not an age that the majority of stakeholders, parents and faith groups were willing to accept. For the sake of grown-up politics, it is much more important to get the compromise of 15 on to the statute books than not to have anything at all or, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham would like, to keep the age at 19, which is completely ridiculous.
The amendment to give a young person over the age of 15 the right to be excused from SRE if they express such a wish would give a child a right of veto. That would also give the right of veto over the wishes of the vast majority of parents who support the teaching of sex and relationship education in schools. The right of withdrawal would effectively pass from the parent to the child once they reached the age of 15. The starting point has to be the extreme importance of pupils receiving at least some of that education about sex and relationships to keep them safe from harm and provide them with essential health information.

Martin Linton: May I ask the Minister about the 0.04 per cent. of parents who withdraw their children from sex and relationship education? Is that done on any promise that they will provide their children with sex and relationship education? If so, is there any check on whether they have done so or not? After all, when parents withdraw their children from school education, as we shall hear in the clauses on home education, there is strict control on whether they provide the equivalent.

Diana Johnson: I understand that there is not.
I want to move on to the issue about 15-year-olds being able to decide for themselves. We do not think that we should pass that right to a 15-year-old. We are concerned that from no other area of the national curriculum can a pupil withdraw themselves. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. Although saying that a 15-year-old should be able to decide on withdrawal for themselves is superficially attractive, it is difficult to determine whether that is the wish of the young person or whether they are saying what their parents want them to say.

Caroline Flint: I, like other colleagues on Committee, have some sympathy with the view about children and young people continuing to have access at whatever age to sex and relationship education. Can the Minister confirm that we are not in an ideal world? If we are to have the chance to put sex and relationship education on the statute book as a compulsory part of the curriculum, even with the proviso of 15, unfortunately we sometimes have to have trade-offs in the real world to move forward. I would hate for us and the other placewhich personally I voted to abolish some years agoto lose the opportunity to stop it getting on to the statute books.

Diana Johnson: My right hon. Friend makes a valid contribution to the debate, about making the measure through with agreement.
We believe that the Liberal Democrat amendment about requiring parents to talk to the school first, if they are concerned and want to withdraw their child from SRE, is too much of a burden. There would be pressure on parents to debate and propose arguments in an inappropriate way. We think that schools should have an ongoing dialogue with parents about SRE, and it would not be appropriate to accept the amendment.
New clause 7 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East. He spoke to it passionately and persuasively, and we have some sympathy with the new clause, in as much as we would prefer no parent to withdraw their child from SRE. However, as I have been saying throughout my speech, we recognise that, for some parents, the teaching of SRE can conflict with their sincerely held views and religious beliefs. As a consequence, we believe that we should preserve the right, but with the limit at age 15.
I urge the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham to withdraw his amendment.

Tim Loughton: We have had an interesting debate, both on Tuesday and tonight[Interruption.] This morning; it seems to have been going on for so long.
Returning to where we started this debate, I absolutely want to see better quality sex and relationships education in and out of our schools, with more imaginative ways of getting the message across to children and young people so that they will listen to, understand and act on it. I spent a fascinating fact-finding day working in CosmoGirl magazine before it went out of business. The problems page dealt with amazingly serious and distressing problems about sex and other things from young girls, which were handled intelligently by the magazine. A number of other magazines handle such problems intelligently too, despite some of the criticism that they get for talking about sex.
The problem is that there is no equivalent for teenage boys. Magazines such as Zoo and Nuts are all about fast cars and fast women, rather than responsible sex and relationship advice. There is a huge vacuum out there, particularly for young boys. We need to consider how we get the message across in an environment in which boys will listen and take note, so we desperately need better quality sex and relationships education in whatever forum we can have it. The quality is absolutely key. As I pointed out when I challenged the Minister before, nothing that she has said, and nothing contained in the arrangements, guarantees an improvement in quality. The second consideration is that SRE should not compete with the already highly stretched curriculum time within our schools, thus having a diluting effect on other subjects. The third consideration is about parental choice.
I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East said. Interestingly, both this weeks episodes of EastEnders so far have involved sex scenes between various characters in Portacabins and bathrooms[Interruption.] I have been a devotee of EastEnders ever since the first episode. What is interesting is the big impression that soaps such as EastEnders, of which I am a big fan, can make, particularly on young people. Some of the messages that they teach can be a great force for good. Storylines on EastEnders have included children in care, gay relations and HIV, which are tremendously educational for and influential on people who watch it.
However, if one looks at the relationships within EastEnders, one can hardly count the number of children living in stable families with married parentsit is not the norm in that soap. There have been a disproportionate number of children born to teenage or single mothers compared with the rest of the population, and that can create the impression that that is the way things are done.
I am not criticising that particular programme. What I am saying is that that programme, similar soaps and the media have huge influences on our young people. If they run responsible messages, that can be good, but when they do not run responsible messages, and if there is a skewed image society, that can give rise to some of the copycat behaviour that we see.
A while ago, when I visited a school not far from me in a deprived area of Brighton, a teacher made the interesting comment that because the soap opera of choice in that area was mostly EastEnders, teachers knew the storyline because it could reflect the way in which parents would respond to the teachers. The programme is hugely influential.
We must ensure that kids are getting the right message in a way that they will listen to. However, taking away parental choice is not the way to do that. I thought that it was rather patronising of the Minister to say that parents have a big and positive role to play in their childrens life. Parents have the biggest and the most responsible role to play. They are the most important people in the lives of their children. This approach takes away the rights and choices of those parents to do what they think is best by their children, without taking away any of the responsibilitiesit still loads those responsibilities on them. I have no problem about teaching sex and relationships education to children in school with the safeguards that I have mentioned, and particularly with the safeguard of parental choice and the ability to withdraw their children from it.
Why is that a problem? As we have seen, the only existing statistical evidence shows that a tiny number 0.04 per cent.are affected, which represents fewer than 3,000 children in this country. There is no evidence that those children are more susceptible to immature sexual relationships or sexually transmitted diseases than those who have sex and relationships education. That might or might not be the case, but there is no evidence for it. As we heard from Gill Frances, one of our witnesses, the whole age thing is a complete red herring. I would like good quality sex and relationships education that is well communicated to kids. Its purpose should be well communicated and consulted on with the parents so that that 0.04 per cent. of children becomes even lower without having to introduce compulsion.

Martin Linton: May I ask the hon. Gentleman the same question that I asked the Minister? Should there be any check on whether the small group of parents who withdraw their children from sex and relationships education provide that education themselves? Is it enough to let them watch EastEnders?

Tim Loughton: It is not enough to let them watch EastEnders, but I would like to see some empirical evidence from a survey of the parents of those 3,000 children. If that showed that those 3,000 children had a much higher tendency to teenage pregnancy or everything else that we are trying to avoid[Interruption.] Hold on. If that was the case, there would be a stronger case for amending the law. However, no empirical evidence exists, and no evidence has been put forward by the Government to support making this change. No convincing case has been made by the Minister as to why the Macdonald report has gone out of the window nine months on.

Ann Cryer: I want to point out briefly that, in going along this path, the Opposition are withdrawing the rights of children. Some of those children will be vulnerable. As I said earlier, the parents who withdraw children from these classes are likely to be the very parents who will not discuss such matters with their children. Therefore, they will be going out into the world without any enlightened knowledge.

Tim Loughton: Well, by the same token, there is no evidence to back up the hon. Ladys claim. There is no evidence to suggest that the 3,000 children involved are not acting much more sexually responsibly than those who are left to have the compulsory lessons in school. We need legislation that is based on empirical evidence, particularly in these sensitive areas, and the Minister has failed to produce that.
Caroline Flintrose
Martin Lintonrose

Tim Loughton: We do not want to carry on the debate for too long, but I shall give way two more times.

Martin Linton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but is he not waiting for research that cannot be conducted? Are the names of the 3,000 parents who withdraw their children not protected by the Data Protection Act? Is it not impossible to conduct the research that he thinks would be necessary?

Tim Loughton: In which case the status quo should be kept. Until it can be shown that there is a problem that would be undermined by not allowing parents the right of choice about whether their children remain, the legislation should not be changed.
We all want to achieve what I set out at the beginning: much better quality sex and relationships education. We think that can be done without removing the rights of parents, and that more children could be involved and exposed to higher quality sex and relationships education without making it a compulsory subject. Making it compulsory has knock-on effects and potentially undermines the relationshipI cited quotes about thisbetween parents, communities and schools, which have no choice about how this is taught to their children.

Caroline Flint: Obviously the debate always comes back to the point that the issue is about having sex. For those young people who have withdrawn from sex education, it is not necessarily about whether they are having sex or not, but about giving them information to assert themselves at some point in their young adulthood with knowledge that is non-biased and helps them to make choices. It is about talking about their rights in marriage, domestic violence and other issues. We have a terrible problem with discussing sex and relationships in this country, but that is what this matter is about. If the Dutch or people from other countries with far more successful outcomes on the issue were looking at us, they would think we were mad.
The hon. Gentleman talks about quality, but he does not will the means. What does he say to all the childrens charities that think that making this area of education statutory will, in some small way, help to raise the quality levels and consistency of what needs to be delivered for our children?

Tim Loughton: If that were the case, there would be a stronger reason for these changes, but the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends have not made the case for how the proposal will automatically lead to better quality. The reason we are talking purely about sex is because we are on clause 14, which is purely about sex and relationships education. We discussed the merits of the other elements of PSHE in our consideration of earlier clauses. I wholly agree with the points that the right hon. Lady makes. The subject should be taught in schools. It is being taught in schools, and it needs to be taught better. However, there is no need to make this so prescriptive and compulsory.
We will not reach an agreement on the proposal but, before we get to the debate on Report, we need the Minister to make a more convincing case for why she is going to take away the rights of many parents, in relation to whom there is no empirical evidence to suggest there is a problem. How will she deal with the subject of quality, because she has not done so by purely describing the mechanics of how the subject will have a different status within schools? How will it fit with the other pressures on the curriculum, and why has the arbitrary figure of 15 been plucked out of nowhere? I do not think there should be any such figure.
The right hon. Member for Don Valley accused us of undermining childrens rights, but one of our probing amendments refers to giving extra rights to children to make that choice. That might be workable or not, but we cannot be accused of doing one thing when we are trying to do exactly the opposite. The Liberal Democrats have not made a cogent case for why the age should be 14. We should do away with the reference to age, which is why we have said all the time that there must be a compulsory aspect. However, there should be a safeguard so that a tiny and, hopefully, diminishing number of parents can opt out their children when they have a particular case and want to do so. If we then concentrate on the quality, that would get the message across more effectively to a broader number of people without undermining the relationship between parents, the communities and their schools, which I fear the clause will do.
I do not want to press the amendment to a Division at this stage because we need to move on to other important matters. However, I make a plea for the Minister to do more homework and to prepare a much more cogent case before we get to the debate on Report, if she wants there to be such a big change to the status quo that has been in place for many years. For 13 years under her Government, it was perfectly tenable for parents apparently to have the choice to remove their children from sex and relationships education. She needs to make the case why13 years on, and after an expert report that disagrees with hernow and only now she thinks that all that should be changed. That case has not been made, although I hope that it will be on Report. In the meantime, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Laws: On a point of order, Mrs. Anderson. I do not want to detain the Committee, given how much we have to do, but can I raise one issue of concern with you? In a spirit of helpfulness on 28 January the Minister raised on a point of order a correction of some statements that he had made to the Committee that morning, about the powers of the ombudsman to award financial compensation.
The Committee will be aware that we have now received a letter, which I have only this morning seen, from the local government ombudsman, saying that in his view the corrected information that the Minister supplied us with was wrong. I am concerned that people who read the record of the sittings may draw the wrong conclusions from the Ministers point of order. Have you, Mrs. Anderson, received any request to correct the record?

Vernon Coaker: Further to that point of order, Mrs. Anderson. It may be helpful if I clarify matters.
I have of course, seen the letter sent by the local government ombudsman, Tony Redmond, to the Committee on 2 February, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I think it right to say immediately that the essential point on which we agree is that neither a school governing body nor a local authority can be compelled to pay financial compensation to a parent or pupil as a result of a complaint to the LGO under the guarantees. That was the point that the hon. Member for Yeovil was concerned about during our exchanges on this point on Tuesday 28 January.
Both the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 and the Local Government Act 1974 require schools or local authorities, as appropriate, to decide whether to make a financial payment to a complainant after considering a report or statement. That remains the position. Whether that is called a recommendation or not is something on which we can agree to differ. We are in discussion with the LGO on those matters.

Janet Anderson: Thank you. May I, before we proceed, urge members of the Committee to exercise some restraint. We have had many sedentary contributions, and background conversations. It is important that all members of the Committee can be heard.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Power to provide community facilities etc

David Laws: I beg to move amendment 234, in clause 15, page 16, line 20, at end add
(5) The Secretary of State shall publish guidance for schools on how they should respond to applications to provide community facilities including applications about which the governing body has concerns..
I welcome you to the Chair, this morning, Mrs. Anderson, and thank the Minister for the statement that he made a moment ago. I do not want to detain the Committee on the clause for too long, given the other matters that we must get through. My intention, as I believe that the Conservatives do not intend to speak on the matter, is to raise both the amendment and a wider issue on the clause without the need for a stand part debate, unless you correct me and feel that it would be appropriate to deal with the two separately.
Clause 15 deals with the power of schools to provide community facilities. The clause would amend section 27 of the Education Act 2002, so as to require governing bodies in England to give consideration, at least once in every school year, to whether to use the powers to provide facilities for community use. I hope that the Minister can deal with two issues.
First, many of the representations that we have received expressed the view that it would be helpful, as set out in amendment 234, to have clear guidance. [Interruption.]

Janet Anderson: Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid some of the background conversations are making things very difficult for the Hansard writers. I once again urge restraint on members of the Committee.

David Laws: I am grateful, Mrs. Anderson.
The purpose of the amendment is to obtain clarification about whether guidance will be given to governing bodies in exercising their freedoms and responsibilities under clause 15. In particular, what guidance will they be given about dealing with applications from certain groups in the wider community, when a school might have concerns about granting them access to its facilities? Those might include extremist political parties, or other groups that promote views that lead the governing body to think it inappropriate to welcome them on to school property.
The other issue that I want to raise, Mrs. Anderson, to avoid a stand part debate, is the intention behind the clause. I should also like to put it on the record how such freedoms are to be used. In paragraph 27 of a memorandum submitted to the Committee, the NASUWT said:
Significant caution must be exercised in taking this proposal forward. The money delegated to governing bodies is intended to ensure that they are able to undertake their core responsibilities for the provision of high quality teaching and learning.
In other words, it is concerned that money should not be diverted from educational purposes into community and other activities.
The impact assessment says that
schools are limited to spending their budgets on the purposes of the school.
It goes on to say:
The objective of this clause is to include community facilities explicitly within the definition of purposes of the school, for spending purposes.
Interestingly, it goes on to say:
This is to support closer partnership working between schools and to enrich provision - and thus outcomes - within an area.
That leaves me rather unclear whether the purpose of the clause is to allow partnership working between schools, or whether it is to facilitate groups outside education using the facilities of the school for community purposes. Those are two very different things, and it might be considered appropriate to spend money on one and not another. Subsection (2), which deals with the additional flexibility that the Government want to grant, says:
Subject to regulations under paragraph (b), subsection (3)(a) has effect as if amounts spent on providing facilities or services under section 27 of the Education Act 2002...were spent for purposes of the school.
I find that confusing, because it appears to redefine any expenditure on community facilities as school-related expenditure. My concern, and I expect that of the NASUWT, is whether it is possible for expenditure that has nothing to do with education or school provision to be hidden by this particular amendment, which seeks to redefine more or less anything that the school is spending money on, including in the community, as for a school and educational purpose. I hope that the Minister can clarify that point.

Vernon Coaker: Good morning, Mrs. Anderson, and good morning to the Committee. It is nice to be back here; I felt a bit strange sitting on the Bench behind. The hon. Gentleman raised a couple of very important points, but the power for governing bodies to provide community facilities is not new. In the clause, we are asking governing bodies to consider each year whether they should use the power. So the clause does not provide a new power. It simply requires them to consider whether it is appropriate for them to use the power.
Alongside that, non-statutory guidance is given to governing bodies, advising them how to use that power. It deals with some of the important issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, such as what sorts of community groups can use school facilities. It is my understanding that very little concern has been expressed about the matter to the Department, and that governing bodies have felt confident about using that power when they feel that it is appropriate. Having said that, we can look at the non-statutory guidance to ensure that it is as it should be, but we do not think that it will be necessary to make any changes with respect to that, although the amendment raises an important point.
We are trying to focus on the way in which schools are becoming a bigger part of the community. We want to draw out that purpose and say that it might include working with parent groups and other youth groups outside the traditional school environment. There is still a school purpose in trying to build aspiration within a community. Another aspect may be schools work with other schools to provide a facility. Two secondary schools half a mile apart may work together to provide a joint opportunity for young people or parents in the area that would benefit both schools. That would fit the purpose. The hon. Gentleman raises some important points, but I hope that with that

David Laws: I am grateful to the Minister. He has, I think, been helpful, but can he give an assurance, in relation to the NASUWT representations that we have received, that this measure does not ultimately mean the diversion of money for education to non-educational purposes?

Vernon Coaker: My last point was to be that there are of course limits on the exercise of the power to provide community facilities and those limits are already set out in legislation. The governing body cannot do anything that detracts from its core purpose of ensuring the quality and standard of education in the school.

Martin Linton: I am a governor of a nursery school and childrens centre and we have a budget covering both educational and community facilities, so many governors already have a budget for community facilities. Obviously, the childrens centre has to be opened up to general community use as well as the parents of pupils at the nursery school.

Vernon Coaker: That is a helpful comment. Again, to reassure the hon. Member for Yeovil, there is a duty on the governing body to ensure that its primary function is the quality and standard of education in the school. It cannot do anything that detracts from that, so if it was spending money in a way that did, the legislation says that it should not be doing that.
We are saying that the governing body should consider whether it could use some of its budget to provide community facilities that in the broader sense of education and community, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea referred, could contribute to the quality and standard of education in the school by supporting activities outside the school that would impact on what happened inside the school. With those comments, I hope that the hon. Member for Yeovil will withdraw the amendment.

David Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for those reassurances and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Power to form company to establish Academy, etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Ken Purchase: I want the clause withdrawn. I shall go into a little detail, but I will try to take full note of what you have said, Mrs. Anderson. First, it is necessary to understand what we mean by a company limited by guarantee. What it does not mean is that no one ever makes any money out of it. A company limited by guarantee is not a not-for-profit organisation. Often, we find members of organisations who adopt this methoda company limited by guaranteewho say that of course they have no ability to distribute profits to shareholders, because the shareholders are limited to a share of the value of £1 each and there is no dividend payable on that share. That is what they mean by not for profit. They mean not for the profit of the shareholders, but of course we find that that is a very convenient position when we start to examine some of the salary structures involved in companies limited by guarantee.
Many housing associations, arms length housing companies and other organisations adopt the company limited by guarantee approach. Of itself, it is of course harmless, but it can be used in a certain way. We may find that the chief executive of a company limited by guarantee that provides services previously provided by the local authority earns moreoften considerably morethan the chief executive of the local authority. It becomes a way of obfuscating a nice money-making venture.
The Government, in their wisdomor naivety, in my opinionpropose to allow schools that want to establish academies to form companies limited by guarantee. We know what is going on. Often, people who have set up academies palm off an otherwise useless, finished, worked-out, down-at-heel executive from their company on to a school and pay his salaryit is usually a manfrom school funds. That is how we get into the position we have in London, where head teachers in academies are paying themselves £200,000 a year. Recently, The Sunday Times reported that the head teachers or principals of at least 11 academies are paid more than £150,000 per annum. That is more than some directors of education who run 40, 50, 60, 70 or 100 schools. It is simply a way of putting money into the back pockets of people who would otherwise be working in education for salaries on the scale that everyone else works for.
The proposal that the
governing body of a maintained school in England may...form, or participate in forming, a company to enter into an agreement
is simply another way of allowing public funds to be put into private pockets. We have seen quite enough of that over the past 20 to 30 years. People have been able to enrich themselves from the public purse. Whether academies are good or bad in educational terms is not the point. The point is whether we want people to enrich themselves at the cost of taxpayers through the obfuscation of forming a company limited by guarantee. The answer has to be, No we do not.
Where does the money come from? I have some figures from the north of the country, which is not known for having an embarrassment of riches in education. Sir Peter Vardy writes to complain that his academies in Northumberland get about £1,000 per pupil less than his academies down the road in Middlesbrough. He quoted figures showing that the amount per pupil for Emmanuel college was £5,900 and for the Kings academy was £7,463. His complaint was that Middlesbrough received about £1,000 per pupil more. So we are talking about £8,500 per pupil.
I want to tell the Committee what grants schools that are not academies in the same area receive. Cramlington high school receives £3,628 per pupil, Astley community high school receives £3,924 per pupil and Blyth community college receives a bit more at £4,413 per pupil. None of those grants approach even the lowest amount received by the academies. That is where the academies get their money; the Government have filled up their pockets. We need to know what they are doing with the money. We do not know that any more because academies are outside the Freedom of Information Act in any event.
This proposal will allow them to obfuscate even further. The Government must think carefully. I know that the Opposition would put as many such measures in place as they could. They would probably privatise the whole education system. We all know where the so-called Swedish business is heading. We all know it is about enriching privateers at the expense of the public purse.
Mrs. Anderson, I am trying hard to obey your missive to be brief. There is so much more to say. It is an utter disgrace. I wish that my Government would recognise that the track that they have gone down in this regard, including further measures being taken now, are not in the interests of schooling generally. There is a similar measure on the next page, but I shall not bother to mention it because I think I am making the point with this one. Further assistance to academies and those who are enriching themselves is unnecessary. If academies are to play any part in the serious education of people in this country we need to get rid of this enrichment culture and get down to the brass tacks again.

Vernon Coaker: May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East that there is clearly a difference of view? He is right to ask all of us questions all the time and to challenge all of us all the time and, where there is a policy difference, to try to get the Government to justify what we are doing. By reiterating the points that he has made passionately, forcefully and clearly, he reminds us that those of us who think that academies have a role to play should justify that thinking. It is right that he does that.
To respond to my hon. Friend, we have tried to see that academies play a part over the past year or two. He knows that many clauses apply to academies and that they challenge us about that, saying, Why are you making this apply to us? We say, Because youre state schools. Academies have certain freedoms, which I know that my hon. Friend disagrees with, but they are state schools, and that places certain obligations on them. However, they have a role to play in certain circumstances to try to help raise achievement, alongside other types of schools. We do not regard them as the only answer. The Opposition want every school, both secondary and primary to be an academythe let the market rip approachwhereas we believe that differences in schools, and different types of schools, help raise achievement. That is a point of difference between my hon. Friend and me. We do not disagree on many things, but we disagree on this matter. I respect my hon. Friend for making that point, because he passionately wants to raise achievement.
I should like to reassure my hon. Friend on two points that he specifically raised. Academy trusts cannot make a profit, although I know that he was making a point about the diversion of funds into some of the companies, and so on, which he feels should be spent on the front line.
On my hon. Friends point about freedom of information, I understand that that matter is under consideration at the moment. He might be interested to know that there is discussion in the Ministry of Justice about the extension of freedom of information and whether that should include academies.
Clause 16 will give maintained school governing bodies in England the power to form an academy trust to enter into a funding agreement with the Secretary of State to establish an academy. Currently, maintained school governing bodies do not have the power to set up an academy trust directly; they must first set up a school company. The clause allows them to form an academy trust, should they wish to do so, to try to help with the general improvement in secondary education that we are seeing, and where appropriate to establish an academy, if that fits in with the general secondary school provision in a particular area.

Ken Purchase: The point is that this power will allow schools to become trading entities. Telford College of Arts and Technology already does that, although under what guise I am not sure. It sells educational materials and lectures to schools in the rest of the area and makes a tidy little sum, which all goes back to Telford, where the head teacher is paid far more than the chief executive of Shropshire council, who runs the whole county. This is what happens. My hon. Friend the Minister must see that the trading-company approach to education is an open sesamean open doorto those who would enrich themselves at the expense of the public. He mentions freedoms, such as they might be, but if he thinks they are so good and so essential to education, why not give them to every school?

Vernon Coaker: Part of setting up academy trusts is about trying to share good practice. In the example he uses, the head teacher and services from one school go to another school to share that good practice and to help it develop its own good practice. Yes, this may add a cost in terms of teacher time or resources and materials, but that is not used as a profit in the traditional sense of the word. It is then reinvested into educational services either in that school or in the general educational provision.
I know that my hon. Friend and I disagree on this point. I think that academies make an important contribution to secondary school standards. I want every secondary school, whether academy, national challenge trust, local authority maintained school or whatever, to achieve the very best. We are seeking to help those governing bodies who would want to establish academy trusts to do so in a controlled and collaborative way. By sharing that experience and expertise, hopefully we can raise standards across every school.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Power to propose new schools

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 18, page 17, line 20, at beginning insert
Subject to the provisions of section 8(1),.

Janet Anderson: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 66, in clause 18, page 17, line 24, leave out from State to end of line 26.

Nick Gibb: Welcome to the chair, Mrs. Anderson. I will be brief. According to the impact assessment, the policy behind the clause and the preceding clauses is to make
it easier for maintained schools that have the right combination of educational excellence, capacity and track record and are therefore accredited to be brought in to lead school improvement interventions in weak schools through Academies, majority Trusts and federations and also to propose to establish new maintained schools.
There appears to be some question about whether governing bodies of maintained schools already have this power to establish new schools. But the Governments view is that they do. It would be helpful, therefore, if the Minister could expand further on whether maintained schools already have this power.
The purpose of amendment 67 is to probe this issue further and to ask how the clause ties in with the policy behind section 8(1)(b) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. Under that provision, LEAs can publish proposals for a new school under the competition procedures of section 7 only if certain conditions prevail and only with the consent of the Secretary of State. Those conditions relate to the track record of the education authority concerned. The Minister will recall how controversial that measure was and why those safeguards were inserted into the Bill. Originally the intention was that local authorities could not propose any school under the competition rules.
The impact assessment says that since 2006 there have been 31 new school competitions, of which 11 have been won by existing schools which have been or formed part of a trust. Could the Minister expand on the details of those 11 schools? Were they schools in local education authorities with a proven track record, for example? What does he mean by maintained schools that have the right combination of educational excellence, capacity and track record? Can he define which schools will meet that threshold? Amendment 66 simply removes from the Secretary of State the ability to pass decisions over whether a school can have these powers to another person or body. These are important judgments and ought to be made by someone who is directly accountable to Parliament. We have debated this issue on a previous clause, but the principles apply equally to this clause.

Vernon Coaker: Under clause 18, new schools can be proposed by a governing body. We are trying to make it clear that governing bodies have that powerit is currently unclear. That goes to the heart of the hon. Gentlemans comments about the clause. We want to ensure that governing bodies have that power.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the accreditation process. He will know that we have consulted on that process, which has just finished, taking into account what we believe about accredited school providers and groups. He asked what we mean by excellence. That is the point of the consultation. We do not want new governing bodies to have the power to create new schools or join other schools if we are not certain of their quality. Clearly, there must be some assurance and certainty. We must have some criteria by which we judge whether an institution has the capacity, educational talent and ability and quality in itself to share with others. That will be a part of the accreditation process. As I said, we are consulting on that, and we hope to publish the first list in the next two or three weeksperhaps it might interest the hon. Gentleman.
Only the Secretary of State will be able to designate other people who can allow governing bodies to act. Again, we think that that is right. There may be other bodies to which it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to give the authority to designate or accredit a particular governing body. We are trying to ensure that those who propose new schoolsif they are to share them with other schoolshave the ability, talent, expertise, experience and standards that we want.
With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendments.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He has confirmed that the purpose of the clause is to firm up the vagaries of the law. I am grateful to him for spelling out that there is a consultation process in play to determine what is meant by educational excellence, capacity and track record. It would have been helpful to have an indication of whether it means a proportion of GCSE grades or an Ofsted judgment of outstanding leadership, management or something else.

Vernon Coaker: All those thingsthe standard and quality of education, extra-curricular activities and Ofsted inspectionswill be taken into account. The weight that we give to each of them is also important.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful for that further clarification. I look forward to seeing the first list of schools that are regarded as having educational excellence, capacity and track record in the next two to three weeks, and I will look at that list carefully.
I was disappointed in the Ministers response about other bodies. It is important that such important judgments are taken by Ministers who are accountable to this place, and not by quangos and other non-departmental public bodies that are not directly accountable for their decisions to this place. In the current atmosphere of trying to make politics more transparent and accountable, I do not think that it is right that we start to devolve decisions to such bodies. It undermines confidence in the parliamentary system and the purpose of elections if decisions are ultimately taken by people who are not subject to elections and parliamentary accountability. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

School improvement partners

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 19, page 17, line 33, after other, insert educational.

Janet Anderson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 198, in clause 19, page 17, leave out lines 35 to 38.
Amendment 194, in clause 19, page 17, line 38, at end insert
(2A) After subsection (2) there is inserted
(2A) A person may not be appointed as, or remain, a school improvement partner unless he is for the time being approved by the governing body and head teacher of the school..
Amendment 87, in clause 19, page 18, line 3, leave out must and insert may.
Amendment 199, in clause 19, page 18, line 5, leave out subsection (4).

Nick Gibb: Clause 19 extends the role of SIPs from that of improving standards at a school to that of improving the well-being of pupils. It is odd that the Government want to widen the role of SIPs beyond that of education when they were established only in 2006. There has been no proper evaluation of whether they are a useful development and provide value for money. I have spoken to heads throughout the country about SIPs, and I have found mixed views. Some see them as an expensive distraction. The NASUWT shares that perception, and states:
The NASUWT already has concerns about the effectiveness of the SIP programme and whether it does provide appropriate support and challenge to head teachers and governing bodies on school standards.
On clause 19, it says:
The NASUWT remains unconvinced that it is necessary to widen the scope of the role of School Improvement Partners...so that they provide not only advice...for the purpose of improving standards at the school but also other prescribed services to improve the wellbeing of pupils in the school.
The General Teaching Council appears concerned and says that there
are risks associated with this development.
It fears that enhancing the role might restrict the ability to recruit
if the SIP role became onerous for many serving head teachers, there would be a loss to the system in terms of knowledge transfer.
It goes on:
The GTC is also concerned about the local authority being over-reliant on the SIP for evidence of school performance, given its responsibility to intervene in underperforming schools.
It seems that the role of a SIP is transforming and has transformed over the past three years from one of providing advice to more of an accountability mechanism. Amendment 68 would insert the word educational into the clause before services to confine the advice that SIPs offer to educational matters. The key role of SIPs should be to help raise educational standards. If they are meant to give both educational advice and advice about well-being, we move beyond the expertise of any one person into the realm of poor quality either of educational advice or advice on well-being. It is easier to be an amateur in someone elses field than a professional in our own. The danger with the policy is that we would be encouraging amateurism.
Amendment 194 was inspired by the worries of the NUT, which states:
The NUT believes that it would be desirable for this clause to be amended to introduce an appeals process for governing bodies, in the event that they consider a designated SIP to be unsuitable.
The amendment requires the approval of both the head teacher and the governing body of a school before a SIP is appointed. As the purpose of a SIP is to help and advise rather than to inspect or criticise, I cannot see why the amendment would be a problem for the Government. A SIP need not be somehow independent, like some form of inspector. A SIP is meant to be a critical friend, so schools should have a say in who that critical friend ends up being.

David Laws: I should like to talk to the amendments we have tabled on the clause. Although we are all conscious of the limited time left for scrutinising the Bill, the clause is important. According to the Governments impact assessment, the clause is the most expensive part of what is quite an expensive and bureaucratic Bill, with an estimated cost of some £325 million, in net present value terms, for the school improvement partners.
As ever, the impact assessment gives us an interesting insight into the Governments present view of the role of SIPs. Yet again, the individual writing those frank impact assessments is to be commended for their clarity in describing and criticising existing Government policy. The impact assessment says that the
current role of the SIP in schools is an inefficient use of resources as the role of the SIP is too heavily focused on educational attainment, where schools could better benefit from challenge,
and that
the role of the SIP is often duplicated by other LA staff.
Inevitably, for the Government, it says that government intervention is necessary to correct the inefficiency.

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at One oclock.